Art may be defined in the following way: an excellent example of excellence in the particular mode of that excellence.

Art is the example, the thing represented is the excellence.

Art is the borrower of excellence, but once that excellence is borrowed, the borrower becomes excellent, since excellence is purely excellent whether excellent in itself, or borrowed.

Because the thing is excellent, excellence exists, and therefore an excellent example must exist, whether an example par excellence is necessary, or not. Hierarchy exists, whether we want it to, or not.

The excellent example may be actual, or simply inferred as such.

For instance: The real and excellent example of a woman is excellent without any qualifications. A beautiful woman is not like a beautiful work of art; she is a beautiful work of art, given our incontrovertible definition above, and this is true without irony, and understood immediately, despite the fact that a woman par excellence shares countless physical attributes with other women.

Duchamp’s readymade art—the famous toilet, for instance, is art, also, because we infer that here is the best example of its kind—we do not know that it is the best factory-made toilet there is—but when it stands alone by itself, presented as an example, and we note a certain utilitarian beauty in its form, we give in to the general idea that here is an example par excellence—just as when we gaze, in reality, upon example la femme par excellence. Had we a real familiarity with the types of factory-made toilets, we might look at Duchamp’s piece and laugh: “That’s a poor example of a toilet! That’s not art!”

Warhol was actually spoofing Duchamp, not society, or the marketplace, or anything more profound, with his Brillo boxes and soup cans—no one could ever confuse Warhol’s ‘plain store item’ exhibit with an example par excellence—the only possible excellence is the beauty of the satire on Duchamp’s artificial trick, which featured a more mysterious, stand-alone object.

This is why Duchamp’s piece belongs to Modernism—art mocking the real—and Warhol’s to post-Modernsim: art mocking art, or more specifically, art mocking modern art that mocks.

In a democracy, we are all supposed to vote for the best people running for office. But the whole point of a democracy is that there are no “best” people; so we see the great dilemma. This is why a democracy is a necessary evil, thwarting excellence at every turn and creating art which looks like trash. In democracies, the artist makes art for the janitor—art that should be thrown out.

Duchamp (Modernist) made art of a factory piece, in which the example was inferred to be an excellent example of its (low) type. Warhol (Post-modernist) satirized this by presenting replicated examples (boxes, cans)—obviously not excellent. Post-post modernism seeks an even more iconic, primitive statement to escape this modernist chain of mockery—and so it arrives at what is essentially trash—but trash which cannot be thrown away by workers (janitors) who perform this important function within the institution. A hierarchy is established by the presentation of the lowest imaginable low (trash) which nonetheless is untouchable (janitors cannot touch it) because it “belongs” to the artist and curator, who are higher on the professional chain than the janitor. If this comes across as pathetic, it is; but let the reader attend any contemporary exhibition these days at a college or a museum, and see what is now passing as “art.” The janitors’ hands itch.

Preventing the janitor from doing his job, the “art” (trash) is displayed in a gallery and receives accolades, and no one is allowed to toss it. The Post-post artist re-positions himself outside democracy by frustrating the worker (janitor) and (symbolically) makes himself an “elite,” a person who is—excellent.

Capitalism and democracy are excellent examples of the ready-made and the throw-away, and it is easy to see this “excellence” in the culture, the politics, and art.




  1. Andrew said,

    April 21, 2016 at 4:01 pm

    This is so interesting. I like this post.
    There is much to mine here and I hope it will yield many riches. I now offer the first spade-full to be sifted for value. May my fellow Scarrieteers forgive me if I mistake rocks for precious gems or lead for gold as I rummage in the dirt.

    [Art is the borrower of excellence, but once that excellence is borrowed, the borrower becomes excellent, since excellence is purely excellent whether excellent in itself, or borrowed.]

    OK – but doesn’t the supposed aesthetic excellence of the borrower decrease as the idea or theme or object-to-be-satirized (which is a borrowed, not a created theme) gets further from point of creative origin?
    Perhaps that is what you are saying all the way through.

    I mean, in the end, the actual commercial designer who combined colors and graphics to make the Brillo package had more aesthetic integrity than Warhol. That unknown commercial designer also created a piece of utilitarian excellence wherein Form met Function and blessed the eyes and dirty sinks of many dwellings. Warhol just produced more hype and fodder for the esoteric initiates and elitists of the religion of high-priced irony.
    I do get it that as a post-modernist Warhol was mocking mockery but then why is he celebrated so much still ? Duchamp’s original Dadaist jab should make all of us appreciate a REAL fountain even more. It should augment the aesthetic value of a true and lovely source of bubbling waters, whether painted, sung, played, versed or filmed. All the neo-Dada absurdist posturing since the days of Duchamp has the stench of urine about it and deserves a good flush.

    [The real and excellent example of a woman is excellent without any qualifications. A beautiful woman is not like a beautiful work of art; she is a beautiful work of art]

    I can agree that the above-mentioned woman IS a work of art… but only because as an original (not borrowed or represented) creation her presence implies the existence of her aesthetically intelligent and loving Designer, the Lord of heaven and earth to Whom we are all accountable in the end.

    [Preventing the janitor from doing his job, the “art” (trash) is displayed in a gallery and receives accolades, and no one is allowed to toss it.]

    Yes exactly. This is applicable also to police work/civil order under an agitating Leftist administration if one substitutes “police” for janitor and ” criminal” for art/trash. To “toss it” is punish/imprison/appropriately vilify.

    We are certainly reading about and suffering the effects of this “excellence” everyday in our degenerating empire.

    Time to lay down my shovel.

  2. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 21, 2016 at 5:56 pm


  3. Andrew said,

    April 21, 2016 at 8:02 pm

    Well that is a kindly sort of response to my 30+ minutes of work responding to this post. Thank you sister.
    Maybe it’s time to talk about those “rivers of living waters” now…

    Or did I misinterpret and you are calling BS on what our Fearless Leader scribed rather than my response to it?

  4. thomasbrady said,

    April 21, 2016 at 9:41 pm


    Thanks. You get it.

    Why is Warhol still celebrated? Because the art world knows this is what it is: art describing art. Art describing other things is so passe. The self-reflexive is the ultimate intellectual gesture. The deeper one goes into self-description, the more one finds one can be conservative and radical at the same time—and perhaps this is the attraction of the trick.

    I’m not sure whether Mary is responding to you, or to the Scarriet piece. But since you largely agreed with the Scarriet piece, I have a dreadful feeling that the essay has offended Mary in some way.


  5. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm

    Both. But I’m not judging, I just don’t like this. I can’t judge since I also am capable of BS although I tend to not give it a voice.. Doesn’t detract from the better angel-essays of your nature(s) that I don’t like this because I don’t like Warhol or Duchamp and I don’t want to see a beautiful woman even indirectly compared to a state of the art commode. It sounds too tongue in cheek, wink wink to me. And you both are older than that.

    • Andrew said,

      April 22, 2016 at 2:58 pm

      I don’t get what you want Mary. Here is a post about modern art that Tom invites anyone on-line to respond to, whether coherently, trollishly, poetically or philosophically.
      To enjoy the post, reflect on it and write a reasonable response is to “give voice to BS” ?
      Sheesh. Why ever respond to anything then.

      As far as giving an account to my Lord and Savior for every word I have ever thought, written or uttered, thanks for the reminder. I am sure I will have some ‘splainin’ to do. But is that not also why his blood was poured out on my behalf? Is there some deficiency in the atoning power of his sacrifice for those who place their faith in Him? Perhaps I need to shout from the rooftops a bit more loudly what is whispered in my ear…

      What is it that bothers you about Dada/Pop art ?
      Can you articulate it here? It would liven up the thread and I would be interested. I used to love the Dadaists and the Surrealists but when I became a Christian I no longer accepted the nihilistic tenets that they take for granted. That doesn’t mean they aren’t fun to analyze. And hey – what’s not to like about R. Mutt’s urinal ?

      Tom – if democracy is a necessary evil, what is the alternative?
      Just suffer with it probably.

  6. Andrew said,

    April 22, 2016 at 2:22 am

    Duchamp was designating the urinal a “fountain”, not comparing the thing to a woman; although he did jest later on about brides stripped bare by their bachelors which I always found hilarious.

    I am not sure why you called BS on me Mary but I understand that this is not one of your favorite Scarriet posts. I find Dada, Duchamp and the critique of the cult of Modern/Post-modern art to be stimulating and relevant so please let me splash around in my dirty water OK?

    I honestly feel that the living waters promised by Christ can be brought into this conversation. Somehow. (?)

    • noochinator said,

      April 22, 2016 at 12:15 pm

      “German artist Gustav Metzger’s work was rubbish — literally. In 2004, the artist’s installation Recreation of First Public Demonstration of Auto-Destructive Art was on display at the Tate Britain when a museum employee accidentally threw part of it away. How was he to know that the plastic bag of trash sitting next to the artwork was actually part of the artwork? The bag was later recovered, but it was too damaged to display, so Metzger replaced it (whew!) with another bag.

      “Metzger isn’t the only artist whose work has been accidentally mistaken for junk. In 2001, Damien Hirst lost a pile of beer bottles, ashtrays and coffee cups (meant to represent the life of an artist) when a janitor at London’s Eyestorm Gallery cleared it away. And in the 1980s, Joseph Beuys had a dirty bathtub scoured clean by a diligent employee in Germany who was probably wondering who had taken a bath in the middle of an art gallery.”,28804,1956922_1956921_1956916,00.html

      • Andrew said,

        April 22, 2016 at 2:11 pm

        Joseph Beuys !
        What a clown. Look out for that coyote and lock up your honey and gold leaf…

  7. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 4:36 am

    Matt. 12:36.

  8. thomasbrady said,

    April 22, 2016 at 1:32 pm

    I was not comparing a woman to a urinal.

    The umbrella concept is excellence, the concept which introduces the essay. This is my “radical” idea—that art should be first concerned with excellence, not depiction. It’s, as usual with me, Platonist. First, the idea, then all the details unfold. Every thing is an idea, not a thing.

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 22, 2016 at 2:56 pm


  9. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 3:04 pm


    knowing how word bleeds into word
    when colours soften over time and
    after so many washings

    let us be kind, from paragraph to paragraph
    letting the golden spool unwind
    and leaving no broken glass behind

    to wound the reader
    to unhinge the mind
    seeking the consoling waters


    mary angela douglas 22 april 2016

  10. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 3:52 pm

    It was not a good day for Art when Warhol and Duchamp began to be regarded as artists. And if you find a diamond and throw it in the mud as in the image of the beautiful woman juxtaposed with urinals which is INDEED the image created in your post Mr. Graves segued from one paragraph to the other you ARE creating a certain effect on the reader for which you are responsible. Your mind may be able to entertain trash and treasure at the same time without contradiction but that doesn’t mean the reader is able to sustain that. And that’s how I was taught rhetoric and the ethics of rhetoric by Stephanie Stueber, c.s.j. a long time ago and I was as rebelious to that notion as anyone here. I’m not saying anything out of spite ever. I’m saying it for a reason and a reason I also apply to myself. Personal attacks are not appreciated by anyone at anytime and some here resort to that with great relish.

  11. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 4:07 pm

    There still are things I DO appreciate about what everyone has written here. But it isn’t kindness not to say something when you feel like you should say something. It is actually unkindness. I don’t mean anything as against anyone and I do overall still very much appreciate learning new things on Scarriet and for that matter, being able to speak freely here in the first place. I do realize I’m a guest and I haven’t even brought flowers, baked goods or those little seashell soaps as we were taught to do as children in exchange for hospitality though maybe some of the soap would be useful here.

    The BS reaction was not meant against either Tom or Andrew but as I have explained. Please do not be offended. I only meant it for good, and as it was taught to me through hard lessons. Forgive me if it was too harsh or unwarranted. Please. And have an invisible baked good of your choice.

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 22, 2016 at 4:15 pm

      P.S. I recommend the key lime pie.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 22, 2016 at 4:16 pm

        Scarrieteers is genius.

        • maryangeladouglas said,

          April 22, 2016 at 4:53 pm

          And I did feel an extreme fondness for the reiteration of the words excellence and excellent. It reminded me of the verbal word experiments of Gertrude Stein which I have always loved.

          I just couldn’t understand why Tom chose to write such beautiful sentences on a bathroom wall.

          Also Andrew you have a hidden eloquence and I wish, though my wish may not have any business to be wishing since your poetry is your own province and not mine, that you would follow the lyrical bent in your poetry rather more than the satirical;I do realize it is through your wish to serve the Lord in your poetry that you even use satire in the first place. And any verse I quote I quote as much to remind myself of it as anyone else so you don’t have to go all spluttery. Just ask yourself, does this apply to me or not? If it doesn’t it doesn’t matter does it? No ballistics necessary.

          Gentlemen, sometimes you are wasting your great talents. The more we talk about the trash artists the more their fame grows;that’s how it happened in the first place that they wedged their scamoid toes in the museum doors, ooh and aah.. That and at least in Warhol’s case the adulation, the stupid, vapid beautiful people titillation of the Studio 54 crowd bore him along and that we are still suffering from as Andrew pointed out.

          Maybe I’m not reading closely enough. No one here was praising the trash artists.

    • Andrew said,

      April 22, 2016 at 6:39 pm

      Ok I feel better. Thanks Mary. The lemon bars are delicious.

  12. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    Your unified silence does not speak well of you but I did. Bye.

  13. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 6:45 pm

    I wonder why you put your comment which was later before mine. You do this consistently breaking up the thread and making other comments appear incoherent or confusing when they are not. But glad you liked the lemon bars. Yum. Think I’ll have some myself. And here’s apples…as God intended them to be.


    [“We won’t starve;we have apples…”
    Sam Elliott’s character,
    from the lovely Christmas movie, “Prancer”]

    I would be eating the apple squares under the
    burgeoning apple tree or it may be
    apple sauce cake,

    apple tarts, ruby red apple rings in jars
    and watching the green apple stars and dressed
    in a dress with apple appliques all ready for May

    and apple cheeked so the relatives say
    to me every summer and I adrift in a sea
    of the pink alternatively cream apple blossoms

    floating floating from the orchard only for me
    so that I am queen of the apples perpetually
    being from Arkansas which has adopted as State Flower the

    apple blossom long since and before I ever dreamed of this
    apple pie in the sky richness for myself,
    all covered in cream.

    apple butter apple butter
    forgive me if I stutter
    it’s only for pure love of all the appleness

    and if they’re serving apple pie,with cheese or
    without or
    this veritable a la mode slice of Heaven on earth.

    won’t you have some. Please.

    mary angela douglas 22 april 2016

  14. Andrew said,

    April 22, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    Dear Mary, Tom and the beloved wall-writers of this thread,
    I hear you and no, your well-chosen words here do not send me spluttering or provoke ballistics. I appreciate your insights and yes I am unable to relax and just be lyrical. It is as if I can’t not be satirical. Not sure why. Perhaps it is my revenge on Poetry for all those cloyingly earnest heartfelt confessional melancholic pastoral lovey-dovey things I have read (at times been forced to read as in HS English) over the years. It is something I struggle with. I actually feel guilty if I write a poem with no mockery in it anywhere ! Although I do once in a while.

    You are right about the “vapid titillation” (lovely words) of the urban cognoscenti regarding campy chic ironic non-art. Which, as Tom said above, has become art-about-art-about-art to the nth degree. It gets dull. But it has the unintended effect of making one go back to beautiful figurative art with renewed appreciation, and this goes for verse, painting, music, all art.
    I think of Thomas Cole, the Pre-Raphaelites, Hudson River school and religious art, whose beauty outlives all ironic commentary and mockery because it is beautiful and true. It’s Truth that our adversaries hate ! If they can’t ignore and deny it altogether, then hey want to reduce absolute Truth (God) to a campy little cocktail-fest in a NYC gallery where everyone outdoes each other in making clever nihilistic jibes.
    A pox upon their doomed souls. May the Lord have mercy on them lest they get what they deserve. But Scarriet lives forever and rides her white horse in the footsteps of dawn (thanks Led Zep …)

    [Tom chose to write such beautiful sentences on a bathroom wall.]

    In a way that is what all internet commentary is – but we should still try to do it well and not be too rude or profane. I know I sometimes flip your switch without meaning to, so I go more carefully Mary but I am thankful for your faithful presence here.

  15. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    Thank you Andrew. I like very much what you just said, although I’m not saying that my liking it should in any way promote or squelch anything you write .I know my comments come across as a kind of laying down of the rules as if I were self appointing myself to be in charge of what other people say and I don’t know how to get that tone out of what I say; it even irritates me that it sounds that way but maybe its just not possible to say anything without it coming across that way and putting in too many or even qualifying ameliorating phrases such as, in my view, in my opinion etc. just makes it wind up sounding like a wet dish rag.

    Of course we don’t have to write on bathroom walls whether we are on or off the internet. And why would we if we have the choice. That’s what I don’t understand. We have the freedom not to, or prison walls either for that matter. Thank God. I admire Tom Graves for his writing and his musicality very much and for holding onto Scarriet. That’s WHY I said what I said. It is taking beauty down from the pedestal (all beauty, not just the beauty of womankind or mankind, either) and dunking it in the latrines that has BEEN the problem.

    The problem of the denigration of beauty will never, cannot ever be solved by doing the same thing. To use the same methodology and then justify it by a peculiarity or eccentricity of style of by a redefinition of terms that no one else understands or will agree to even if they do understand, flies in the face of all logic unless your purpose is not to champion beauty but just to be eccentric and provocative.

  16. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    What I really liked about Tom’s essay here and Mr. Nooch’s corollary, reinforcing example were, they both illuminate the really ironic fact that the janitors (presumably relatively “uneducated” although I realize very educated persons in this economy may also be janitors too) throwing out the trash (and in their low income status presumed in need of so much help being so ‘underserved” in their neighborhood schools as far as cultural opportunities go), have turned out to be, in fact, every time they dump the trash can with the supposed art works discarded, much superior as arbiters of taste to their “let’s give back to the community and the culturally underserved” rich as Croesus superiors, Emperors with no clothes.

  17. thomasbrady said,

    April 22, 2016 at 9:12 pm

    I don’t like Modernism. I don’t like sloppiness and ugliness and pretense. Bad art is cultural fascism. But Modernism has been the status quo for over a hundred years now. It lives in schools, universities, museums. It also lives in Scarriet, where it is exposed for what it is. Are there flowers growing in the cement? Yes. We love those flowers. Heroic, beautiful flowers. And yes, occasionally, even cement has its uses.

    • Andrew said,

      April 24, 2016 at 3:18 am

      Stand firm. We shall inevitably triumph.
      In selfless devotion to Scarriet we shall soon enter their unguarded precincts, burn every trace of their boring verbiage, ravish their muses, defile their poetic rationales, smash their tablets, hack their Twitter accounts, and write a rhyming requiem in fresh blood on the charred walls of their ruined dwellings. Their children and their pathetic poetic aesthetic shall not escape our righteous vengeance.
      Modernism, Postmodernism and Post-postmodernism shall lie, twitching, in helpless bloody fragments, ignored and unmourned when we have accomplished our terrible yet necessary duty.
      All hail SCARRIET.

  18. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 9:25 pm

    Excuse my stubborness and I completely agree with you on the scourge of Modernism but flowers do not have a choice where they grow. Human beings have a choice where to plant them, though. And cement really is not a good place for them or any living thing to be growing. For them, it is oppressive despite the fact that they overcome it. The flower in the crannied wall is even to me a sorrowful image. But maybe, that’s just me.

    • thomasbrady said,

      April 22, 2016 at 10:32 pm

      The flowers must be taught.

      As Plato says, no one willingly chooses badly. Ever.

      Yet, as Poe says, there is a spirit of perversity which makes us choose wrongly.

      And so moral science will never be perfected.

      This is why moral advice is no good. Rather we need an onslaught of beauty.

  19. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 10:40 pm

    Beauty is not enough. The Nazis loved Beethoven.

    • thomasbrady said,

      April 24, 2016 at 10:10 am

      Mary, so you are faulting Beethoven because there were Nazis? Nothing stopped the Nazis, did it? Not even Beethoven. Not even beauty. What did stop them, Mary? Nothing you would like, anyway. So there you go.

  20. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 22, 2016 at 10:50 pm

    That is why the real Trinity is Beauty, Truth and Goodness and no matter how much people pooh pooh the moral it still exists and if you go against it there are still consequences and suffering to the individual. The laws of God are there out of Love not narrowness. And they are extremely real no matter how much we all dislike people who are smugly moral and or self righteousness. If you really look at the Ten Commandments you will see quite naturally that violating any of these is a good deal of what causes intense suffering and anguish to human beings. They are extremely deep in that way and merciful in their revelation. If you want to prove it to yourself you can. It’s called learning the hard way. Jesus came to reduce the Law to two things (loving God and loving one another as we love ourselves but he did not abandon but only fulfilled the law of Love in this reduction because the Pharisees and Saducees got out of hand with it and started making rules and regulations for every nit picking thing that people did, before Sabbath, after Sabbath etc. But the core of the law was and is Love and without it Beauty will always be misunderstood, maligned and trampled into the dirt. History, both public and personal is proof of it. That’s what I believe. And Edgar Allen Poe was brave in many ways but he wasn’t perfect. And not every pronouncement he made was for as the Bible says, the healing of nations (or individuals).

  21. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 1:01 am

    Beauty is not enough in this messed up world. But maybe in the world the way it should be beauty would be and should be- enough. And beauty alone would indicate lightly truth and goodness without us feeling like we were being beaten over the head with it which is not right either.

  22. Anonymous said,

    April 23, 2016 at 2:27 am

    Tom: At what point did you change your Poetry blog into a religious blog?
    { must have missed the notice.

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 23, 2016 at 2:31 am

      The ultimate insult but the Ultimate is above insulting.

    • thomasbrady said,

      April 24, 2016 at 10:12 am

      Anonymous, my blog allows readers to freely express their opinions. It hasn’t changed.

  23. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 2:36 am

    If you want to insult somebody why don’t you insult the person directly who made “religious” comments. My name is Mary Angela Douglas and I never log in as Anonymous because I am not ashamed or afraid of saying what I think irregardless of people who hide behind the bushes and take pot shots. And though Tom Graves can certainly speak for himself since you really insulted me I feel entitled to say: since when would Tom Graves have to issue a statement on anything concerning his blog when the only thing is blog His doing is promoting, unlike you, FREE SPEECH and Poetry. And, as even you admit, it is HIS BLOG.

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 23, 2016 at 2:38 am

      Oops. Make more typos when I’m mad. Bears repeating anyway. Since when would Tom Gravs have to issue a statement on anything concerning his blog when the only thing his blog is doing is promoting, unlike you, FREE SPEECH and Poetry. And, as even you admit, it is HIS BLOG.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 23, 2016 at 2:43 am

        And how would Tom Graves inform you if he changed his blog if you are anonymous? Seems a little silly to me, the whole thing. Or shall we call you Snarky-With=A-Face-Mask-On-And-It-Isn’t-Even-Halloween?

        • maryangeladouglas said,

          April 23, 2016 at 3:00 am

          Hey kids, let’s put on a show! We’ll call it Snarky…who don’t ‘low no talk about beauty truth and goodness round these parts cause he’s the sheriff of mean, rotten, scummy chicken livered Whatever.

          Take it from the top. or from the dregs. It’s a sorry a– day in America and no golden morning when a person is ridiculed ANONYMOUSLY EVEN for talking about beauty truth and goodness. Unbelievable.

  24. Anonymous said,

    April 23, 2016 at 2:55 am

    I really just didn’t want anyone who knows me to know that I actually made a comment here.

    I do think it is a good thing, though, that Mental Institutions are now giving their inmates access to the internet.

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 23, 2016 at 3:05 am

      How would you know that?

    • Andrew said,

      April 23, 2016 at 2:10 pm

      Na na-na na na !

      Your mama is mental.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm

        This kind of thing is ok with you Tom?

        • thomasbrady said,

          April 24, 2016 at 10:18 am

          Mary, let them be anonymous. I respect their right to be anonymous. I have no problem with anonymous. People can come to this party masked if they want. The opinion is more important than the person. “Comments” is about the idea. I really don’t care about the person. People die. Ideas don’t. Visitors are allowed to talk no matter how they are dressed. They can laugh, even be obnoxious, if they want. I just pray they don’t destroy the furniture…I paid a lot for it.

          • maryangeladouglas said,

            April 24, 2016 at 11:59 am

            Taunting someone especially about their mother, or father of sister or brother and trashing their feelings and their love even for their own poetry is not an opinion. You with all your distinctions literary and otherwise are certainly aware of this. Looking the other way makes you complicit in extreme verbal, and psychological abuse of such an untoward character as to be worthy of the devil himself. I do not have words in English or any other language strong enough to condemn what was said to me in these instances here on Scarriet but I have faith that God will one day find them. i thought you were a better person. I was very mistaken. Every single person on this blog consistently overtly, covertly trashed things I said but this time you have all really crossed a line. I was infinitely kind to all of you. Nothing you said was justified. And the you, like devils, are legion here. Looking through your archives I see Scarriet has a pattern of abuse toward some others, not only toward myself.

            You all are despicable. But then, you pride yourselves on it too. What on God’s green earth is your purpose here I cannot fathom. But it is not good. It is not true. And it is not beautiful.

            My mother mattered, matters to me more than anyone on earth. You are bastards.

            • thomasbrady said,

              April 24, 2016 at 1:04 pm


              You are holding everyone here responsible for a silly snarky remark—which I don’t support or condone and why would you say I do?—by an anonymous poster. This is not fair. You are giving a bad apple way too much power and attention. Freedom of speech requires the good not to react badly to the bad. By allowing a certain amount of freedom here, Mary, bad apples are allowed to speak. Simply ignore them. You err by responding in lengthy, fussy terms to them. My God where is your common sense? Step back and look at the big picture. Blog. Allows comments. Not all comments will be nice. It has nothing to do with Tom not being a nice person because he allows freedom in comments.I will not be dragged into this silliness. I think your own dear mother would say the same thing. I read your poetry. I read the insults. What I do with it is up to me—and no one else.


              • noochinator said,

                April 24, 2016 at 2:07 pm

                Tom, please stop coddling this woman — it’s obvious she’s unhinged. Let her rants remain at Scarriet for posterity to view, but ignore her comments utterly and completely….

          • maryangeladouglas said,

            April 25, 2016 at 1:09 am

            This is the comment I objected to as well. And where I asked the question to YOU THOMAS GRAVES in the thread is directly after this comment; So I will assume it is alright with you for a person who comes on Scarriet defending their position, no matter what it is, to be accused, berated and and labeled as a lunatic. But it is not alright with me and with a good many other people as well.

            Here again, is the comment I was asking about: and I ask again, is this comment that Andrew made to me which is in fact not a comment, but a taunt, o.k. with you? Because if it is, you are a jerk.

            Andrew said,
            April 23, 2016 at 2:10 pm

            Na na-na na na !

            Your mama is mental.

  25. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 3:12 am

    Let’s zoom in here folks for a real close look at a genuine coward and abusive personality. Here’s what you do to be like this person. Log in anonymously. Make snarky comment (fill in the blank). When called out on said snarky comment imply that the commenter is mentally ill.

    So now in America, am I getting this right, you are considered insane if you talk about beauty, truth and goodness? Where is that written? What’s your source for saying that. Any rational thought behind that? Any thought at all except to ridicule, destroy and decimate someone else who maybe doesn’t think like you? What’s the alternative? What do you believe? Ugliness, Lies, and Snarkism? There’s something you can really throw your hat in the ring for. Oh yeah. And you believe in it so much you don’t show your face.

  26. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 3:13 am

    Thanks everybody for standing up for me once again while I get trashed by idiots. Bye Scarriet.

  27. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 3:26 am

    P.S. TO THE SNARKMEISTER. You need a better circle of friends if you have to log in anonymously ANYWHERE because you’re afraid of what they will say. You shouldn’t be living in fear. And you may truly be suffering from paranoia if you feel so afraid you can’t show who you are. I hope you will feel more positive and happier in the future and not have to get your jollies by knocking other people down. You deserve better hobbies and a better life I’m sure than one where you feel like doing this kind of thing is productive. And insulting someone by pretending they are mentally ill is kind of retro. People nowadays realize this is part of human suffering and deserves compassion not ridicule. Believing in beauty, truth and goodness, in God in Christ is not a sign of mental illness anywhere except in totalitarian regimes. Are you from one?

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 23, 2016 at 3:39 am

      You also might find it useful to read William James book The Varieties of Religious and Carl Jung on the healing aspects of religious faith. There are others that if you are really interested could help you understand that having faith in God is not aberrational and I know I probably spelled aberrational wrong, but you get the idea.

      It is possible to suffer from a disordered personality and any number of phobias with or without Faith but Faith is not the root cause. Human suffering is nothing to joke about. Calling someone a mental patient because they don’t agree with you is just immature and shows you didn’t take the trouble to develop rational arguments to defend your position and so, you resort to name calling. What is your position? Are you just anti Christian? You need to find out what you are for. Being against things is not something to live by. It will not get you through any kind of difficulty. Maybe you don’t want to live our life that way, as a believer in God and/or Christ but why are you so enraged that someone else wants to? Why does it make you so mad? What does their choice have to do with yours? I really don’t understand.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 23, 2016 at 3:42 am

        Should read William James book The Varieties of Religious Experience. He was a noted psychologist and wrote this book from a positive point of view and with anecdotal information that is quite interesting and not focused primarily on the experience of God through the institutional churches or synagogues or temples.

        And Carl Jung as you probably know had many insights into the human psyche through study of various religions, cultures, evene art and literature. My favorite book of his is called Man and His Symbols. He broke with Freud and it was very brave of him to do so at the time as he was a protege of Freud. His philosophy is much more positive and focuses on healing not neurosis.

  28. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 3:45 am

    I minored in psychology a long time ago; double minor with philosophy.

  29. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 4:03 am

    Where were you Andrew? Are you still Christian?

  30. Andrew said,

    April 23, 2016 at 2:08 pm

    After considering the silly conversation of the religious folks here I deconverted to Atheism and commented as “anonymous” just to keep the thread going ☺

    • noochinator said,

      April 23, 2016 at 2:53 pm

      Careful, ‘drew, you might make Mary publicly quit Scarriet forever for the tenth time. Actually she did quit yesterday (“Bye Scarriet”), but she was back in about three minutes.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 23, 2016 at 4:59 pm

        “I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains…”
        Simon and Garfunkel

  31. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 2:44 pm

    So you assumed a false identity to harrass me when I was standing up for Christ, for beauty truth and goodness. Unbelievable. What a snake.

    • noochinator said,

      April 23, 2016 at 2:56 pm

      Mary, maybe you’d be happier taking your Big Rock Candy Mountain School of poetry to another blog. Or keep plastering your poems all over Scarriet for all I care — I’ve learned to studiously ignore every dropping you leave.

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 23, 2016 at 3:19 pm

        When did I insult you.

    • Andrew said,

      April 24, 2016 at 2:55 am

      Mary, Mary, I was joking. Relax.
      I too felt slighted by “Anonymous” who came on the thread to smugly assert his superiority to ‘religious’ sensibilities’ at Scarriet.
      In spite of our differences, I am on your side spiritually.

      But we still have to have fun…

      • maryangeladouglas said,

        April 25, 2016 at 12:57 am

        Calling my mother ‘mental’ is fun for you? You are sick people, all of you.l

        • Andrew said,

          April 25, 2016 at 1:20 am

          Obviously I was responding to Anonymous’s childish insult regarding all of us being escapees from the mental hospital: (“…mental Institutions are now giving their inmates access to the internet.”)
          My reply was to his/her/its mean-spirited comment, not YOU, Mary. Don’t be so touchy. Sometimes it’s a good thing to have some emotional callouses.Go back and look at the thread. Why would I have any reason to taunt you that way out of the blue?

          He (Anonymous) calls me an institution inmate, I call his mama mental. That is social justice. That is an eye for an eye. That is taunting the taunter at his own level.

          • noochinator said,

            April 25, 2016 at 9:13 am

            Andrew, I recommend you don’t stoop to her level by acknowledging her endless stock of plaint.

            • Andrew said,

              April 25, 2016 at 1:13 pm

              I like Mary but she gets bent out of shape easily. She needs to become more cynical and emotionally callous in order to have more fun on the ‘net. One can have those qualities and still be Christian… but I’m sure she won’t believe it.

              • noochinator said,

                April 25, 2016 at 1:35 pm

                You know how you’ll read internet comments, and there’ll be a troll who has an agenda, so you just learn to blip over every one of his comments without reading a word? Well, this is how I’ve learned to live with the current state of Scarriet….

                • Andrew said,

                  April 25, 2016 at 1:41 pm

                  I sometimes act like a troll – but without any agenda. I don’t want to get too emotionally invested in an internet thread, consequently I toss off annoying and/or provocative comments at times. Yes, it is childish I know. But great fun.

                  However I also post attempts at reasoned and articulate response when I feel like it and the topic (like Dada and Warhol) grabs my interest. Scarriet provides many opportunities for both ends of the communicative spectrum. That is why I pledge undying allegiance to Scarriet in spite of it all.

          • maryangeladouglas said,

            April 25, 2016 at 1:10 pm

            You are a liar Andrew. The anonymous poster called me the person in the mental institution. You were nowhere on the scene when al lthis happened. You are all liars and what is worse, you distort and mangle the truth. You pile lie on top of lie. Why would you do this Andrew? Look in the mirror and figure it out yourself.

            • Andrew said,

              April 25, 2016 at 1:34 pm

              The anonymous jerk called ANYONE mentioning God at Scarriet a purveyor of religion (not only you – I also took it as a taunt)and insulted such by depicting them as present or former inhabitants of mental institutions.

              The tactic is that of a 6th grader saying “na na you’re mental”, as we said quite often in 6th grade.

              I look in the mirror and say “the Truth is out there”.

          • maryangeladouglas said,

            April 25, 2016 at 1:32 pm



  32. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 23, 2016 at 3:31 pm

    What the heck’s wrong with the Big Rock Candy Mountain? Actually that’s a pretty good name for my kind of poetry. A lot better than imitating a bunch of decadent French poets with liver complaints and sour expressions on their faces. And more fun. Why didn’t you “studiously ignore” being rude to me? Or is that the real purpose of Scarriet, just a bunch of bully cronies hanging out waiting for someone to gang up on? What School of Poetry should I call that?

    • maryangeladouglas said,

      April 23, 2016 at 4:53 pm


      today I was accused of writing poems about
      the Big Rock Candy Mountain.
      In America.

      times have changed I thought.
      is it better now? now that folklore’s down the drain
      and people want poems that complain and

      paint a bitter picture.
      I will be glad, gladder than the gladdest thing
      I heard a poet say once on the wing.

      and so will I
      I say today.
      and so will I.

      mary angela douglas 23 april 2016

  33. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 25, 2016 at 5:46 am

    Anyone that wants to can look at the chronology of these comments and see that the original dialogue was between me and the poster. hours and in some cases, days later comments were added by others which actually skews the flow and even alters the logic of the thread, what there was of it. This is also extremely dishonest. And Andrew you definitely were talking to me and not the anonymous poster with the comment about my mother though you tried to doctor up after the facts the comments here; so I don’t know what version of Calvin’s Institutes of Religion you subscribe to, but I’m pretty sure bearing false witness against your neighbor, slander, and mockery are not part of the creed.

  34. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 25, 2016 at 5:51 am

    Also, in comment 30 Andrew admits that he was the anonymous poster. Which means he also insulted my state of mind as did Nooch. This is not rational discourse. This is cyberbullying. And it is wrong.

    • Andrew said,

      April 25, 2016 at 1:11 pm

      Mary, I did not post as “anonymous”.
      I make up fun names whenever I am too lazy to log in. Lighten up. Comment 30 was a joke.
      I consider myself one of the “religious” that the anonymous jerk was insulting. I am sorry if you thought my taunt was directed at you.
      It was not. Even if it had been, are you SO FRAGILE that you wilt if someone says “nanny nanny boo boo – your mom is mental “?
      I was adopting the persona of an offended 6th-grader.
      Do you take everything said by people on internet poetry threads at face value? Ease up on the Emo as the young’uns say…

      Ask Tom, who can see the email address of whoever commented as “anonymous”. It was not me.

      Paranoia is a funny thing. I mean, we accept a LOT by faith online.
      We assume that Tom is Tom, Nooch is Nooch, you are you, etc.

  35. maryangeladouglas said,

    April 25, 2016 at 6:05 am

    Further, this is not the first time I have been subjected to this kind of nonsense. Looking through the archives I see very clearly that these kind of mind games have been played for a really long time on Scarriet. I thought it was also kind of weird that the icon of anonymous was the same one that popped up the other day when Gary Fitzgerald was posting. So maybe Andrew lied about that too (being the anonymous poster). Looking at it objectively I think this kind of ruse happened most often with women commenters. But who’s counting. Just God and the angels who really hate lies and cruelty. But not as much as I regret speaking with people I thought were friends when that was never the case. I hope the circus was fun for you. It’s over.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: